SHRI RAM GOPAL GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 966/IND/2016Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 February 2019AY 2008-096 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and found it relevant to the issues. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash credit and presumptive interest on a debit balance. The CIT(A) partly upheld these additions. The assessee sought to admit additional evidence to explain the cash credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the additional evidence submitted by the assessee is admissible and whether the additions made for unexplained cash credit and presumptive interest require fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: HONBLE KUL BHARAT & HONBLE MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kaushik, CA
For Respondent: Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.01.2019Pronounced: 06.01.2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal by Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2 Bhopal, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), dated 30.06.2016 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) framed on Ram Gopal Gupta ITANo.966/Ind/2016 27.12.2010 by ACIT, 3(1) Bhopal. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained loan upheld by the CIT(A), be held to be unjustified and be quashed.

1.

2. That on fact and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.4,55,894/- as presumptive interest on debit balance of M/s. Raju Construction Co. be held to be bad and unjustified and be quashed.

3. That on fact and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant pleads that in the alternative and without prejudice to the grounds stated above the addition made be held high and be reduced.”

2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from vehicle plying and material supplier. Income of Rs.8,48,390/- disclosed in the income tax return filed on 08.10.2008. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS followed by notices duly served u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings various information were called. Ld. assessing officer after making addition for unexplained cash credit of Rs.19,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act for want of verification of identity creditworthiness and genuineness and an addition at Rs.4,55,894/- on account of presumptive interest on Ram Gopal Gupta ITANo.966/Ind/2016 outstanding sundry debtor assessee income at Rs.37,71,660/-.

3. Aggrieved with the additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act and also confirmed the addition for presumptive interest at Rs.4,55,894/-.

4. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee requested for admission of additional evidences under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, in order to explain the alleged cash credit of Rs.9,00,000/- which stands confirmed by both the lower authorities and also submitted that all these documents are sufficient to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan taken from Anju Udayshankar & C.S. udayshankar at Rs.3,00,000/- & Rs.6,00,000/-. He prayed for admitting additional evidences and setting aside the issues to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication in light of the fact that Permanent Account No., Copy of income tax return, bank account and confirmation of the cash creditors are sufficient to explain the cash credits.

Ram Gopal Gupta ITANo.966/Ind/2016 6. As regards addition for presumptive interest of Rs.4,55,894/-, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given cognizance to the fact that the presumptive interest calculated by Ld. Assessing officer on outstanding sundry debtors is devoid of the merits because the outstanding balance of the sundry debtor was not the same as regular transactions took place in this account during the year.

7.

Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) though supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) but did not opposed the request of the Ld. counsel for the assessee for setting aside all the issues to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

8.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against two additions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) namely unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.9,00,000/- & presumptive interest on debit balance at Rs.4,55,894/-. Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed additional evidence which we find to be relevant for adjudication of issues raised before us and thus we admit the additional evidence.

9.

After examined the facts on record, in the light of the submissions and additional evidence submitted by the Ld. 4 Ram Gopal Gupta ITANo.966/Ind/2016 counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to go before the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication, as the additional evidence admitted by us goes to the root cause of the addition and it be in the interest of justice if the assessee is given one more opportunity to place the necessary documents in support of its contention that the addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.9,00,000/- is uncalled for. Similarly with regard to the addition for presumptive interest at debtor balance of M/s Raju Construction Co. at Rs.4,55,894/-, we find that Ld. CIT(A) seems not to have laid his hands on the fact that there were regular transactions with M/s. Raju Construction Co. during the year relating to civil construction business.

10.

We therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that all the issues raised before us needs to be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication in the light of the additional evidences admitted by us. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee.

Ram Gopal Gupta ITANo.966/Ind/2016 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open court on 06 .01.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →